The agreement eliminates secret holds, prohibits delay tactics like forcing the reading an amendment that has already been submitted for 72 hours, and exempts about one third of executive nominations from the Senate confirmation process.

Additionally, Sen. Reid agreed to reduce the use of "filling the amendment tree," while Sen. McConnell agreed to limit the number of filibusters. Both party leaders agreed not to seek the Constitutional option to change rules in the 112th or the 113th Congress.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, also a member of the Senate leadership was happy about the agreement even if "we didn't get everything we wanted to." He continued:

As a result of this agreement, there should be more debate, more votes and fewer items blocked by a single senator or a small minority of senators. Make no mistake about it: this agreement is not a panacea, but it is a very significant step on the road to making the Senate function in a better, fairer way. This would not have been possible without the continued insistence on change by Senators Tom Udall, Jeff Merkley and Tom Harkin. Their push to establish the Jimmy Stewart-style filibuster, which would require senators to actually hold the floor if they want to block a bill, is one I hope will be accepted by the other party in the future.

The Fix the Senate Now coalition is disappointed that leadership didn't address the full measure of obstructionist tactics. Senate Resolution 10, proposed by Senators Udall, Merkley and Harkin, would have brought true reform to the Senate rules.

The Schumer-Alexander proposal doesn't go far enough, according to Udall spokeswoman, Marissa Padilla. She explained: "Senator Udall and others are still advocating for the strongest package that can be put forward. That is still the goal. There is no doubt that rules reform is a heavy lift but they are in it for the long haul, trying to make the Senate more transparent and efficient in how it operates."

Below are quotations from leading organizations involved in the coalition, calling on the Senate to ensure that the rules reform package addresses the true sources of Senate dysfunction:

Communications Workers of America (CWA)

The Communications Workers of America strongly supports comprehensive Senate and filibuster rules reform that will make the Senate more transparent and accountable and allow for deliberation and debate. We support the common sense reforms of Senate Resolution 10 proposed by Senators Harkin, Merkley and Udall and supported by at least 23 of their Senate colleagues.

What we saw in the 111th Senate was a shocking manipulation and abuse of rules. Reforms that would help working men and women were never allowed to come up for debate on the Senate floor. The Employee Free Choice Act, the Fair Pay Act, the Dream Act, and comprehensive climate legislation, among other measures, would have made real improvements in the lives of American families, but were never even discussed by the Senate. There were more than 400 bills that passed the House of Representatives that never had a hearing on the Senate floor.

That’s why common sense reforms are necessary. The Senate rules should be changed to eliminate filibusters on the motion to proceed, so that there can be real, bi-partisan debate. Those who want to filibuster should make a public stand and be accountable for their positions. And post cloture debate should be limited on nominations, so that our government can function and carry out the responsibilities that public officials are elected to fulfill. These reforms are necessary if the Senate is going to do the work the American people expect. The American people deserve nothing less.”

Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron

Alliance for Justice strongly supports common-sense reforms to the rules of the United States Senate that would help break the recent pattern of inaction and obstruction. The proposals, for example, from Senators Harkin, Merkley, and Udall would be particularly valuable in preventing nominations to the federal judiciary from being held hostage to the kinds of delaying tactics that have created a crisis in the federal courts. We urge Senators of both parties to commit to adopt true rules reform that will enable the Senate to function in the spirit of civility, accountability, and comity that the American people expect and deserve.

Common Cause President Bob Edgar

Filibuster abuse by both parties has made the Senate a symbol of governmental dysfunction. Common Cause believes the reforms advanced by Sens. Harkin, Merkley, and Udall are a good start at fixing the problem, letting the majority work its will while respecting the right of the minority to be fully heard and giving the minority the leverage it needs to influence legislation. We urge Senate leaders to seize this opportunity to make meaningful, positive changes in the way the Senate conducts its business.

Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune

Ending gridlock in the Senate must be a priority to get America working and Americans back to work. The Senate is hamstrung by archaic rules that stand in the way of a clean energy economy and innovation. We need to fix the Senate now.

USAction Director of Policy and Strategic Planning Alan Charney

The Republicans have filibustered at least 259 times in the last four years – without even having to show up on the floor to do so. It is time to end the misuse of the filibuster as an obstructionist tactic and pass some sensible rules reform so that the Senate can work again.

The St. Petersburg Times writes:

As the new Senate returns to work Monday, it has a chance to fix at least one of Washington's problems. A modest reform proposed by a group of Democrats should appeal to both parties as it addresses filibuster abuses while maintaining influence for the minority party. Senators shouldn't let this opportunity pass.

And the Eugene Register-Guard, in thanking Senator Merkley for being a leader on the issue, opines:

Both Democrats and Republicans should support these reforms, which would go a long way toward restoring functional democracy — and the Senate’s battered reputation.

But there’s still work left to be done. Despite editorials in their home state papers and a continued groundswell of support in Florida and Oregon, Senators Nelson, Rubio and Wyden have not yet joined as co-sponsors of S. Res. 10. You can urge them to sign on today by calling their offices and asking them to end the obstruction today.

Restore majority rule to the United States Senate by revising the rules that now require the concurrence of 60 members before legislation can be brought to the floor for debate and restoring majority vote for the passage of bills.

Now, as the rules reform push continues, a leading Johns Hopkins scholar is renewing his call for action. Professor Toby Ditz wrote to his colleagues on the History News Network:

A continued public drumroll is important: senators should know that the public is dismayed about the current condition of the Senate and wants to see majority rule restored... our most effective tool by far is the op-ed piece. If you are not ready to dash off an editorial, letters or e-mails to your own senators and to others are fine. If you feel strongly about reform, this is an excellent time to express your views.

You can join the campaign, too! Send a letter to the editor of your local paper now expressing your views on the issue. Or, send a message to your Senator asking him or her to support Senate rules reform.

Senator Merkley pointed out that there were 44 filibusters in the two years prior to the last major Senate rules reform effort in 1975, whereas in 2010 there were 135 filibusters. He continued:

If we step back, this is about restoring the senate as a deliberative body so it can do the work it's required and expected to do under the Constitution."

The 111th Session of Congress was historically unproductive in the Senate, according to Sen. Udall. He pointed to the lack of a budget bill, the minimum number of authorizations issued for the major departments, and over 400 bills that passed through the House of Representatives but were not addressed by the Senate.

Concluding the call, Senator Harkin explained why we can't afford to employ the current system any longer:

The filibuster has become a means whereby the minority of the Senate dictates what the Senate can and cannot do. We have stood democracy on its head. The majority has responsibility, but not the power, to enact legislation...A small minority gets to decide what happens in this country.

The Washington Post's Greg Sargent called the Senators argument an "eloquent case for filibuster reform." You can listen to the full audio of the call below.

Bob Teigan of Santa Susana told the Los Angeles Times:

If there is one New Year's resolution that the Senate should seek to accomplish, it's the dramatic scaling down of the anti-democratic filibuster. Let's face it, the Senate is the place where good legislation goes to die and the will of the electorate is ignored.

In a letter published in the Dallas Morning News, Richard George argued that we should “bring back Hollywood filibusters” to the Senate. George suggested that filibusters “should require stamina and involvement, just like that used in the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”

In Iowa, Jim Riggs wrote into the Des Moines Register:

Our senators need to begin looking out for the welfare of our country instead of petty, party politics that are cutting into the fiber of our democracy.

Do you feel strongly about reforming rules in the Senate? Tell your local newspaper how you feel with our easy-to-use letter to the editor tool.

• Eliminating the Filibuster on Motions to Proceed
• Eliminating Secret Holds
• Guaranteeing Consideration of Amendments from both Parties
• Requiring Continuing Debate to Maintain a Filibuster (Talking Filibuster)
• Expediting Nominations by Limiting Post-cloture Debate to Two Hours

The reforms will help "restore accountability and foster debate in an institution where obstruction and dysfunction have pushed aside progress for the American people," according to Sen. Udall's press release. The Senator explained the impetus for writing the resolution:

Here in the Senate, open, honest debate has been replaced with secret backroom deals and partisan gridlock... The American people are fed up with it. They are fed up with us. And I don't blame them. We need to bring the workings of the Senate out of the shadows and restore its accountability. Over the next two weeks the American people will have the opportunity to add their voices to the call for reform and I encourage them to speak loudly.

The measure has 24 co-sponsors. For an updated list of cosponsors, click here.

• The proposed reforms constitute an unprecedented power grab. Just the opposite – abusing filibusters is the power grab. It lets even one or two Senators hold the Senate hostage, and say “Do it our way or we won’t let you take a yes or no vote.” Back in 2005, the Senate Majority Leader, Republican Bill Frist, said the number of filibusters used that year constituted “a power grab of unprecedented proportions.” Since then, abuse of filibusters has skyrocketed, with more than twice as many filibusters. Additionally, Republicans have used the “power grab” terminology to attack virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Democrats in the past two years. Despite the assertions to the contrary, Senate rules reform will make the body more accountable and transparent, which is to the benefit of both parties and all Americans. And with the House controlled by Republicans, both chambers and both parties will have to work together to make any legislative progress regardless of the specific rules of the Senate.
• Pursuing reforms – in process and substance – opens the door for future dangerous reforms by Republicans if they take control of the Senate. If the Republicans can change the rules to their advantage they will do it, no matter what Democrats may do this year. They have plenty of precedent to rely on already. In fact, the Senate has a longstanding tradition of adapting to new challenges by adopting new rules. Majority cloture at the start of a new Congress is not a new invention, and would establish no new precedent. Vice Presidents Nixon, Humphrey and Rockefeller have all issued favorable opinions from the Chair that a new Congress is free to invoke cloture by majority vote.
• Democrats are hypocritical for engaging on this effort after their comments in 2005 about the Republicans’ “nuclear option.” Key distinctions need to be drawn between the 2005 effort for reform and today’s push for rules reform. First, there is a crucial difference between the “nuclear option” and the “constitutional option.” The Constitution protects a new Senate’s right to adopt rules at the beginning of a Congress rather than acquiescing to rules adopted by a Senate in office 35 years earlier. The nuclear option called for ignoring rules after they had been used for six months and hence readopted by the new Congress. This distinction is why, except for the 2005 push, reform efforts from at least 1953 until today have normally been taken at the start of a new Congress. Additionally, the rules reforms being discussed for this new 112^th Congress are substantively modest in nature and, unlike the 2005 proposed reforms, would not lower the threshold of votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Finally, the fact that Democrats face an uphill battle to hold the Senate in 2012 underscores that they are being fair now – they wouldn't want to propose anything now that they wouldn't want to live with if they indeed become the minority party after 2012.
• The proposed reforms would eliminate the filibuster or limit the rights of the minority. Entirely the opposite – the reform package introduced by Senators Tom Udall (D-NM), Tom Harkin (D-IA), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) center on such common-sense steps as putting an end to anonymous filibuster threats and secret holds and shifting the onus of holding filibusters to those blocking the bill’s advancement. The filibuster will not be eliminated under this package of reforms.
• Republicans’ past use of the filibuster was motivated mostly by Democrats’ “filling the amendment tree.” Recently, some have claimed that Republican obstruction in the Senate has been due to the Democrats’ practice of “filling the amendment tree” – basically, asserting that because Democrats prevented the minority party’s ability to offer substantive changes to bills, they were forced to obstruct and delay. However, as a recent Roll Call study found, Republican Senators were responsible for 3 of every 4 amendments in the 111^th Congress. Additionally, statistics aside, those making the “amendment tree” argument should be heartened by the component of the rules reform package that provides the minority party the ability to offer germane amendments.

Conclusion

The need for substantive rules reform in the U.S. Senate could not be clearer. As the notable political scientist Barbara Sinclair has written, in 1960s, threatened or actual filibusters affected only 8% of major legislation. By the 1980s, threatened or actual filibusters affected 27% of legislation. Since 2006, that number has reached 70%. This means that the vast majority of major legislation‐‐ and many nominations as well‐‐require 60 votes for cloture.

All branches of government suffer under this arrangement. In the judicial branch, for example, we are facing a crisis, with a record high vacancy rate in the judicial system and a record-low confirmation rate of nominees. Even Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts recently noted the “acute difficulties” faced by the judiciary by virtue of the Senate obstruction to judicial nominees.

The Senate has an opportunity to improve the democratic process to the benefit of the American people and effective governance. It should act on the opportunity and not let mischaracterizations and common concerns derail this effort.

No longer perceived as an insider's issue, the nation is taking notice of the crisis in the Senate and demanding action. From San Francisco to Charlotte to Houston to Detroit, major newspapers are urging the 112th Senate to reform the filibuster and put an end to secret holds.

The San Jose Mercury News plainly states that the Senate's rules "clearly aren't working." The editorial board concluded:

Congress' approval rating stands at 14 percent, which is dead last among the 16 institutions the Gallup Poll surveys. The American people want the Senate to get down to business. Today's filibusters make a mockery of that goal.

The Senate is known as the World's Greatest Deliberative Body, but the Scranton Times-Tribune editorial board points out that "its rules now discourage actual deliberation."

The Pennsylvania newspaper is advocating for a system that would force Senators to publicly debate the issues. That means reforming the filibuster and eliminating secret holds. In one of the best indictments of this arcane Senate rule, The Times-Tribune wrote:

Any senator may hold up any Senate business without explanation. Such arbitrary individual power has no legitimate place in a democratic legislature.

Click here for a full list of editorials in support of Senate rules reform.

Tomorrow, the new Senate has the opportunity to put common-sense reforms in place that will limit obstruction, according Common Cause President Bob Edgar, who continued:

In many ways, the modern filibuster is legalized piracy masquerading as democratic tradition, the minority plundering the principle of majority rule.

The recently concluded 111th Congress saw a record of 91 filibusters in the Senate. The entire 19th century, in comparison, saw fewer than two-dozen filibusters. The rise of such obstruction, often conducted in backroom chambers, has come at a great cost to principles such as bipartisanship, accountability, and transparency, while affecting all three branches of government.

Wade Henderson, President and C.E.O., The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights highlighted the specific consequences of filibuster abuse, writing:

The filibuster has proven to be one of the most potent legislative tactics ever used to deny Americans their basic civil and human rights. Once used to perpetuate lynchings across the South and disenfranchise African-Americans, it is now being used to obstruct pay equity for women, human rights for immigrants, and the basic rights of LGBT individuals. The civil rights movement, which first coalesced around filibuster reform, believes additional reforms are necessary to move our country forward.

No other legislative body in the world requires unanimous consent like the U.S. Senate, according to CWA President Larry Cohen. During the call, Cohen concluded:

In the last session more than 400 measures passed by the House were never debated by a Senate ruled by gridlock and obstructionism. Reform that would require Senators choosing to filibuster to actually hold the Senate floor and lay out their arguments in full public view will strengthen our democracy and enable the Senate to meet the challenges of our time. If the Senate rules aren't changed, we all lose.

Listen to the Press Call

This Wednesday will mark the beginning of the 112th Congress and a return to split-party rule, with the Democrats and Republicans each controlling one chamber of our legislative body. In a political system where standstill is often the default setting, both parties will have to work together to move forward in 2011.

And they will have to work for progress. Just look at how many pieces of major legislation have been affected by the filibuster, according to political scientist Barbara Sinclair:

• In the 1960s: 8 percent
• In the 1980s: 27 percent
• Since 2006: 70 percent

Sinclair is not alone — constitutional historians from across the ideological spectrum support bringing the legislative process out of backroom chambers, and back onto the Senate floor, so that the American people can hold both parties accountable.

Fortunately, the reforms proposed by Fix the Senate Now and our coalition partners are rooted in common sense, designed to reinvigorate the democratic process, and restore accountability and transparency to the Senate — not strengthen either party.

The Chief Justice writes:

Over many years…a persistent problem has developed in the process of filling judicial vacancies. Each political party has found it easy to turn on a dime from decrying to defending the blocking of judicial nominations, depending on their changing political fortunes. This has created acute difficulties for some judicial districts. Sitting judges in those districts have been burdened with extraordinary caseloads.

Roberts is no stranger to Senate gridlock. When he was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1992, he never received a confirmation vote. A similar fate awaited Justice Elena Kagan when she was nominated for the D.C. circuit. The fact that the Chief Justice of the United States felt compelled to wade into a legislative issue clearly illustrates how serious the problem has become.

Luckily, momentum for rules reform continued to grow today, as evidenced by a strongly worded editorial in the New York Times and a compelling historical argument made by Princeton University public affairs professor, Julian Zelizer on CNN.

As we rapidly approach the first day of the 112th Congress -- on Wednesday, January 5 -- it is encouraging that more and more key figures both inside and outside of the Washington Beltway are calling for Senate rules reform.

Reports National Journal:

The fact that every returning Democrat signed the letter circulated by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Mark Warner, D-Va., urging changes underscores growing determination on the part of the Senate’s majority to raise the bars for filibusters.

As Ezra Klein of the Washington Post reports, this is a truly historic event. It’s extraordinarily rare for the entirety of a caucus to stand unified behind any issue, especially one as contentious as rules reform. Writes Klein:

It's no surprise that some Senate Democrats want to see the practice reworked. What's remarkable is that all Senate Democrats want to see it reworked. It's not just the young senators like Jeff Merkley and Tom Udall and Michael Bennett, but the older veterans like Barbara Mikulski and Dianne Feinstein and Carl Levin.

And Greg Sargent, also of the Washington Post, remarks simply:

Again, this is taking on the feel of a real movement.

As the new class of Senators plans to take their seats, it’s exciting to see them joining the growing array of bipartisan voices seeking rules reform. In the coming days, we’ll continue to support these efforts and advocate for reform consistent with our 8 principles.

Thirty Hours. That's how long Senators can continue to discuss each judicial nomination after debate has been ended. During that time, dissenting Senators can prevent the Senate from considering any other business.

As Ian Millhauser noted earlier this year,

Thirty hours may not seem like a lot, but when you consider the sheer number of confirmations, bills, and appropriations that the Senate must consider just to keep the country running, the ability to waste 30 hours before any one of these tasks can be accomplished empowers the dissenters to prevent more than a fraction of the Senate’s business from ever being completed.

This arcane rule, and the Senators who take advantage of it, has caused our courts to enter a state of disarray. One eighth of the seats on the federal bench are vacant because of Senate non-action, according to Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron. To hear more about what she has to say about the problem, watch the video below:

Yesterday, Senate Democrats may have negotiated a deal with Republicans that perpetuates the absurdity of the situation. The minority party agreed to confirm 19 nominees who were unanimously approved in committee. In return, the Democrats will not fight to confirm four moderately "controversial" judges.

The confirmation of these 19 nominees were being held up for purely political reasons — none pertaining to their ability to fairly interpret the law.

Put simply: When rules allow for Senators to continue discussing an issue that is already closed for debate, it is time for reform.

With a combined 24 years of Senate service between them, Sens. Chuck Hagel and Gary Hart pointed out that the Constitution trumps any congressional rules. According to the bipartisan authors:

We believe the abuse of the cloture rule ending debate is a violation of fundamental Constitutional principles... In the interest of the nation and the U.S. Constitution, the Senate must once again become a democratic institution.

Hagel and Hart also advocated for the elimination of secret holds

The calls for Senate rules reform just keep coming — from Republicans and Democrats, sitting senators and former elected officials, editorial boards and the American public. Let's hope the new Senate listens to the outcry and acts on January 5.

With outrageous obstructionism standing as the only thing in the way of these broadly supported bills, it’s no wonder that support continues to grow at the state level. Bob Mann writing for the New Orleans Times-Picayune, points out:

Today's Senate is not what our founders envisioned. Much more than "protecting" the minority, filibusters now prevent the majority from acting at all…If the Senate leaders are dedicated to preserving that kind of Senate, they at least ought to have the courage to tell Americans the truth: It's not the majority's will that prevails in the Senate; it's the minority's.

And John Diaz, opining in the Los Angeles Times, states:

The United States Senate, through its arcane rules and blocs of small-minded partisans, has turned into a palace of obstruction…These archaic and destructive rules need to go.

Finally Byron Williams devotes a column to the filibuster in the San Jose Mercury News, writing:

During the first two years of the Obama administration, the Republican Senate used the filibuster against 139 bills. Juxtapose that with the 1950s when there was roughly one filibuster every two years. The result has been to transform the Senate into a supermajority institution -- hardly the best way to conduct the people's business.

As these commentators point out, the current rules system makes it easy on those who want to do nothing but block progress. This outcry of support from the local level is just another sign that the American public is fed up with the nonsense.

In an exclusive interview with 60 Seconds, the Secret Senator comes clean about his outrageous obstructionism in the Senate. He tells the interviewer:

It’s just part of the political game. You hold bills hostage with endless backroom discussions. We discuss whether to discuss, we discuss whether to negotiate, and then we discuss what we negotiated.

Watch the full video below:

The Secret Senator will appear on Twitter: @Secret_Senator.

While the Secret Senator might perpetuate a system he knows to be undemocratic, we can stop him. Join our campaign the fix the Senate’s rule, and share the Secret Senator's interview with everyone you know.

We are the only democratic body in the world in which a minority gets to determine which legislation is passed… The more we kick the can down the road, the more frustrated the American people become. We can’t be a 21st century superpower with 19th century rules.

Sen. Harkin is proposing a new rule that requires senators to be on the floor to maintain a filibuster. His revisions to Senate rules would also gradually reduce the number of senators required to pass cloture and stop a filibuster.

The "19th century rules" have caused more of President Obama's judicial nominations to be held up than any other President in U.S. history, according to Alliance for Justice President, Nan Aron, who also spoke at this morning's event. Calling the slow judicial confirmations an "outrageous tactic of obstruction," Aron laid out a compelling case for rules reform:

One eighth of all seats on the federal bench are now vacant because of Senate non-action. That's particularly problematic for everyday Americans who turn to our courts to protect the air we breath, the water we drink, and to ensure our workplaces are safe and free of hazards.

Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Communications Workers of America President Larry Cohen and Common Cause President Bob Edgar also spoke at the event.

Check back to this post for video from this morning’s event.

In the Senate’s early years, the filibuster did not exist — a simple majority vote was all it took to cut off a debate. It wasn't until 1806 that the Senate decided to revise its rules and allow for the filibuster. But even after the change it wasn't an especially popular

Times have changed. Today senators threaten to use the filibuster hundreds of times each session. It's become a tool to avoid public debate. It gives senators the power to horse-trade and cut secret deals. It empowers political "hostage takers" who represent powerful special interests. Something has to change.

This week, Senator Jeff Merkley continued his public campaign to change the Senate's rules by issuing several reform principles of his own. Among them:

• Make the filibuster real. If one or more Senators want to filibuster a bill, they should be required to hold the floor and fight for what they believe in.
• Don't give Senators multiple chances to filibuster the same bill. In recent years, Republicans have regularly filibustered routine parliamentary steps, even on measures that virtually everyone agrees on.

Earlier today the Huffington Post published an op-ed by Bob Creamer that makes the same point. Creamer writes:

The Senate should adopt rules that limit the ability of the minority to obstruct and circumvent the will of the majority by using the filibuster and secret holds.

There’s a growing consensus around the need for meaningful rules reform. When our senators convene in January, they must act to ensure that legislation supported by a majority of Americans receives the open consideration it deserves.

Building on this momentum, this week we’ll highlight 8 Principles that Senators should include in rules reform, starting with the elimination of the secret hold.

This is the process by which a Senator can anonymously block legislation or nominations, simply by sending a note to his or her party’s leadership. It’s no surprise that holds are often used for illegitimate reasons--often by Senators looking to placate special interests under a shroud of secrecy.

For instance:

• This year Senator Richard Shelby placed a blanket hold on over 70 presidential nominees in an attempt to force the federal government to award a $35 billion defense contract to Northrop Grumman.
• After a devastating earthquake struck Haiti, Senator Tom Coburn put an anonymous hold on aid funding because he didn’t like the person named to administer the money.
• And in 2006, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, a bill that would have disclosed the pork doled out to special interests, was put on hold by two Senators, one Republican and one Democrat.

Clearly the Senate isn’t working for anyone but the special interests. Add your name to the list of Americans demanding rules reform now: Sign our petition.

Painter notes,

A Republican filibuster would be surprising, since many Republicans are on record against filibustering judicial nominees.

What we are seeing is that the issue of rules abuse is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. There is nothing wrong with voting against a proposed judicial nominee. But using backroom maneuvering to stop a vote at all is not what the founders intended, nor what the American public deserves.

Painter writes:

Sticking to principle is not only the right thing to do; it is also good politics for Republicans. First, the public shares the view that the filibuster is wrong. It is one thing to vote no; it is another to prevent other people from voting because they might vote yes.

No Senator has a duty to vote in favor of President Obama’s nominees- but they do have a duty to vote. Senate rules reform will ensure just this: that the important issues facing the country get an up or down vote in the light of day.

You can read Painter’s entire piece here.

Over the last decade, Senate procedures have increasingly been used to prevent decision-making rather than to promote deliberation and debate. The threat of a filibuster – coupled with a 60-vote requirement to force any substantive vote – has affected nearly every action in the Senate during the last several years, under both Republican and Democratic majorities. As a result, the Senate has effectively ceased operating as the majoritarian institution our founders intended for it to be.

Time and time again, on bill after bill, the Senate has failed to vote – or even deliberate – on issues of paramount importance. Legislation on tax cuts, health care 9/11 responders, food safety, college loans and dozens of other issues have all been blocked or delayed.

And while the Senate’s current rules are detrimental to passing legislation, they are excellent at providing a cloak of secrecy to the legislators. The report notes:

Today’s filibusters are silent, private affairs. No longer do filibustering senators take the floor and speak until they are physically unable to filibuster any longer. Accordingly, in any given situation, it can be very difficult – if not impossible – to discern who is behind the obstruction. This routine lack of transparency diffuses legislative accountability even further.

With a 21% approval rating, it’s time for Congress to end the procedural obstructionism and backroom horestrading in favor of simpler, transparent, majority-rules system.

Read the full Brennan Center report below.

Merkley’s proposal would prevent Senators from filibustering legislation behind closed doors by requiring that multiple Senators stand on the Senate floor and defend their position publicly.

Speaking on The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann, the Senator suggested:

• For the first day, five Senators must be present.
• In the second day, ten Senators must be present.
• On any day thereafter, twenty Senators must be present.

If at any time this threshold is not met, regular Senate rules would prevail and a majority vote will be held. Merkley said:

The Senate’s original commitment to full and open debate has been transformed into an attack designed to paralyze and obstruct the Senate’s ability to function as a legislative body.

Watch Senator Merkley explain his proposal:

There is no question that the framers intended the Senate to be a deliberative body. But they sought to achieve that goal through structural features of the chamber intended to facilitate deliberation –- such as the Senate’s smaller size, longer and staggered terms, and older members. There is no historical evidence that the framers anticipated that the Senate would adopt rules allowing for a filibuster.

The one page letter is well worth reading in its entirety, but to summarize its core arguments:

1. There is no explicit constitutional right to extend debate.

2. The filibuster was not part of the founders' original design for the Senate.

3. The possibility of filibustering was a result of "procedural housekeeping," not a "broad-based Senate preference for a supermajority cloture rule."

This letter from congressional experts is just more evidence that the push for rules reform is picking up momentum.

filibusterletter -

It’s time to take a hard look at how the once noble rules of the U.S. Senate have been twisted to extreme partisan advantage and to the detriment of majority rule.

The newspaper called for Senator Jeff Merkley’s plan for reform, which would prevent a single senator from being able to “obstruct all business just by dropping a note to his party leader, as is now the case.”

The Telegraph joins newspapers in Iowa, Minnesota and Oregon which have responded to the increased abuse of Senate rules by calling for reform.

Read the full Nashua Telegraph editorial.

This move has been widely reported as “threatening to filibuster” or “filibustering” and accompanied by a classic image of Jimmy Stewart, exhausted but ennobled by his cause, in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

But using the Senate rules to bring the legislative process to a dead stop is not romantic. It does nothing to encourage public debate and discussion on the critical issues facing our country. It is the legislative equivalent of deciding to take your ball and go home unless the umpire rules in your favor, and it facilitates the kinds of back room deals that have alienated voters.

The discussion has begun in earnest about what kind of rules reform might best balance the need for all Senators to have the opportunity to express their views with the need for the Senate to be able to fulfill its legislative responsibilities in a timely fashion. The need for reform is clear -- these days, waging a “filibuster” doesn’t require heroic speeches and sleepless nights. It’s as simple as signing a letter.

In Iowa, the Des Moines Register urges Senator Chuck Grassley, who is expected to become chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to use his position to end the gridlock over judicial confirmations.

Some say political gridlock is a good thing if it prevents Congress from doing harm. But gridlock over judicial confirmations is doing harm to the federal judiciary, and that ultimately harms the American people.

[…]

It is ironic that Republicans would use these stalling tactics on judges. During the Bush administration, Republicans were incensed at similar foot-dragging by Democrats, and they insisted that at the very least the president's court nominees be given an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. They even threatened to blow up the Senate rules with a "nuclear option" if that didn't happen.

Insisting on votes for all nominees was the right position then. It is the right position today.

The Oregonian and the Register-Guard both support Senator Jeff Merkley’s ideas on rules reform. The Register-Guard points out that, “One problem is that filibusters aren’t really filibusters anymore.” The Oregonian elaborates,

As Merkley points out, the public already believes that a filibuster is a courageous act of principle requiring an actual physical presence on the Senate floor. Maybe that ought to be the truth. Merkley's thoughts on the topic include a number of useful ideas, ranging from abolishing the party-line seating arrangements in the Senate chamber, to encourage collegiality, to narrowing the range of topics that can be filibustered.

Finally, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune notes that, “…the Senate's most consequential vote once the new Congress convenes in January may actually be about the deliberative body itself.” In particular, they are interested in reforms proposed by Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, among others, to revise rules on “secret holds.”

Reformers want to eliminate secret holds, the opaque process senators use to derail legislation and sidetrack presidential appointments that require Senate approval. Revised rules would require holds to be made public, would limit the number of holds that can be placed on nominees, would require more than one senator to place a hold and would impose a time limit on holds.

It's absurd that the Senate, which is often used as an example to developing democracies abroad as a model to emulate, uses any kind of secrecy. Senators should have the courage of their convictions to be upfront with their colleagues and constituents if they want to slow or stop the legislative process.

We agree. Fix the Senate, now!

Imagine a Senate split 50-50, along party lines, on the ObamaCare Repeal Act of 2013, with Vice President Marco Rubio casting the deciding vote. That would be a satisfying outcome of the Harkin-Udall-Udall effort.

So why does he spend much of his column opposing the prospect of rules reform? While Taranto may worry about the Senate moving forward on at least some nominations and legislation during the next two years under a weakened filibuster, he also clearly grasps that it could benefit his Republican Party as well. As Taranto writes, “If the Senate were to weaken the filibuster next year, a GOP majority two years later might move to abolish it.”

We would be better off, and our democracy would be stronger, if whichever party was in the majority could typically implement its program, and be held squarely accountable by the voters. Senate rules reform helps get us there.

From msnbc.com.

A graphic from the Center for American progress tells the story.  Even after cloture has been invoked, obstructionist senators can force up to 30 hours of debate.  If each nominee took the maximum amount of time to be confirmed, the process would take over 9 years!

As Ian Millhauser notes:

The ability to force postcloture debate on a nomination is particularly unnecessary because these 30 hours ostensibly exist to allow additional amendments to be considered once the Senate agrees to end debate. Because nominations cannot be amended, it is unclear why postcloture debate on nominations should even exist.